Comments on: What Freedom Of Speech REALLY Means http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/ kthxbai Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:01:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-84935 Vinny Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:22:49 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-84935 Jeff: Try here: <a href="http://www.viddler.com/explore/vincenzof/videos/9/">Click</a><div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('84935','Vinny'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('84935','Vinny','Jeff: Try here:\n\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.viddler.com\/explore\/vincenzof\/videos\/9\/\">Click<\/a>'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Jeff: Try here:

Click

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Jeff http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-84934 Jeff Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:19:14 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-84934 hmm.. says there is a problem loading this video.. should I check back, or is there somewhere else to see it? Thanks.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('84934','Jeff'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('84934','Jeff','hmm.. says there is a problem loading this video..\r\n\r\nshould I check back, or is there somewhere else to see it?\r\n\r\nThanks.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> hmm.. says there is a problem loading this video..

should I check back, or is there somewhere else to see it?

Thanks.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Patrick http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79096 Patrick Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:56:15 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79096 In reality, life might not be so much fun if there existed pure and complete freedom of speech. The C&PD clause has some valid points, but you're right, it has been misconstrued. I don't know that I would want to live in a country that didn't enforce some sort of speech regulation, but I'd like that regulation to be as little as possible.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('79096','Patrick'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('79096','Patrick','In reality, life might not be so much fun if there existed pure and complete freedom of speech. The C&PD clause has some valid points, but you\'re right, it has been misconstrued. \n\nI don\'t know that I would want to live in a country that didn\'t enforce some sort of speech regulation, but I\'d like that regulation to be as little as possible.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> In reality, life might not be so much fun if there existed pure and complete freedom of speech. The C&PD clause has some valid points, but you’re right, it has been misconstrued.

I don’t know that I would want to live in a country that didn’t enforce some sort of speech regulation, but I’d like that regulation to be as little as possible.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79039 Vinny Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:20:44 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79039 Sure sounds like it. The C&PD clause was a bad idea because it has come to mean anything that can harm a person's psyche, etc. As with most Supreme Court decisions, it's twisted in ways it was never intended to be to back up the assertion that words hurt. Not good.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('79039','Vinny'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('79039','Vinny','Sure sounds like it. The C&PD clause was a bad idea because it has come to mean anything that can harm a person\'s psyche, etc. As with most Supreme Court decisions, it\'s twisted in ways it was never intended to be to back up the assertion that words hurt.\n\nNot good.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Sure sounds like it. The C&PD clause was a bad idea because it has come to mean anything that can harm a person’s psyche, etc. As with most Supreme Court decisions, it’s twisted in ways it was never intended to be to back up the assertion that words hurt.

Not good.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Patrick http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79037 Patrick Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:13:09 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-79037 I think that you and I would probably agree on this one, though, upon further consideration, this turns out to be a rather complicated issue. The Clear and Present Danger clause was also intended as a safe guard against revolt and disorder; to protect the status quo. Is this a good thing? Don't get me wrong, I don't support an overthrow of the government, but isn't this despotism?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('79037','Patrick'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('79037','Patrick','I think that you and I would probably agree on this one, though, upon further consideration, this turns out to be a rather complicated issue.\n\nThe Clear and Present Danger clause was also intended as a safe guard against revolt and disorder; to protect the status quo. Is this a good thing? Don\'t get me wrong, I don\'t support an overthrow of the government, but isn\'t this despotism?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I think that you and I would probably agree on this one, though, upon further consideration, this turns out to be a rather complicated issue.

The Clear and Present Danger clause was also intended as a safe guard against revolt and disorder; to protect the status quo. Is this a good thing? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support an overthrow of the government, but isn’t this despotism?

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78466 Vinny Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:45:47 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78466 That's a good question... I guess you couldn't take those away, could you? I think I was more focused on what you have the right to say and people's right to not be offended, but I should've taken that into consideration.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('78466','Vinny'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('78466','Vinny','That\'s a good question... I guess you couldn\'t take those away, could you?\n\nI think I was more focused on what you have the right to say and people\'s right to not be offended, but I should\'ve taken that into consideration.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> That’s a good question… I guess you couldn’t take those away, could you?

I think I was more focused on what you have the right to say and people’s right to not be offended, but I should’ve taken that into consideration.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Patrick http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78049 Patrick Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:21 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78049 So, what is your take on libel laws?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('78049','Patrick'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('78049','Patrick','So, what is your take on libel laws?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> So, what is your take on libel laws?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: dOgBOi http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78005 dOgBOi Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:06:50 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2008/07/11/what-freedom-of-speech-really-means/#comment-78005 Excellent coverage of the the 1st Amendment. The Clear and Present Danger test (ie, not yelling fire in a crowded theater) has been used wrongly for a long time now. The purpose of that test is *NOT* to protect people from offensive speech, but instead to protect people from speech that may cause them actual physical or material harm. As Constitutional tests go, it's one of the better ones, yet somehow, people seem to be able to find wiggle room in it when in fact there is none. One of the things I believe is that everyone has the right to their truth, no matter how wrong it is. If I don't want to hear your truth, I can simply ignore you. Generally, I don't ignore anyone, because someone else's truth might contain a kernel of usefulness or a bit of necessary knowledge, no matter how wrong or how sick or how twisted their truth might be. Even inflammatory speech might contain something of value, even if that value is the message "stay away from me, I'm a bigot, I'm a moron, and I'm unreasonable." Oh, and when it comes to unpopular speech: The FCC are the fascists of speech and they should lose the power to regulate the airwaves. They are without reason and intellect. I don't like, for example, Howard Stern, but I don't think he should have to move to a Satellite network to prevent the FCC from fining him. You can turn on BET or MTV and watch people engaging in actions he only spoke about. *sigh*<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('78005','dOgBOi'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('78005','dOgBOi','Excellent coverage of the the 1st Amendment. The Clear and Present Danger test (ie, not yelling fire in a crowded theater) has been used wrongly for a long time now. The purpose of that test is *NOT* to protect people from offensive speech, but instead to protect people from speech that may cause them actual physical or material harm. As Constitutional tests go, it\'s one of the better ones, yet somehow, people seem to be able to find wiggle room in it when in fact there is none. \n\nOne of the things I believe is that everyone has the right to their truth, no matter how wrong it is. If I don\'t want to hear your truth, I can simply ignore you. Generally, I don\'t ignore anyone, because someone else\'s truth might contain a kernel of usefulness or a bit of necessary knowledge, no matter how wrong or how sick or how twisted their truth might be. \n\nEven inflammatory speech might contain something of value, even if that value is the message \"stay away from me, I\'m a bigot, I\'m a moron, and I\'m unreasonable.\" \n\nOh, and when it comes to unpopular speech: The FCC are the fascists of speech and they should lose the power to regulate the airwaves. They are without reason and intellect. I don\'t like, for example, Howard Stern, but I don\'t think he should have to move to a Satellite network to prevent the FCC from fining him. You can turn on BET or MTV and watch people engaging in actions he only spoke about. *sigh*'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Excellent coverage of the the 1st Amendment. The Clear and Present Danger test (ie, not yelling fire in a crowded theater) has been used wrongly for a long time now. The purpose of that test is *NOT* to protect people from offensive speech, but instead to protect people from speech that may cause them actual physical or material harm. As Constitutional tests go, it’s one of the better ones, yet somehow, people seem to be able to find wiggle room in it when in fact there is none.

One of the things I believe is that everyone has the right to their truth, no matter how wrong it is. If I don’t want to hear your truth, I can simply ignore you. Generally, I don’t ignore anyone, because someone else’s truth might contain a kernel of usefulness or a bit of necessary knowledge, no matter how wrong or how sick or how twisted their truth might be.

Even inflammatory speech might contain something of value, even if that value is the message “stay away from me, I’m a bigot, I’m a moron, and I’m unreasonable.”

Oh, and when it comes to unpopular speech: The FCC are the fascists of speech and they should lose the power to regulate the airwaves. They are without reason and intellect. I don’t like, for example, Howard Stern, but I don’t think he should have to move to a Satellite network to prevent the FCC from fining him. You can turn on BET or MTV and watch people engaging in actions he only spoke about. *sigh*

Reply – Quote
]]>